406 P.3d 1279
Wyo.2017Background
- Kimberly and Kurt Acton divorced in October 2014; their divorce decree incorporated a written settlement containing an integration clause requiring written modifications.
- The settlement awarded Kimberly possession of the marital home and awarded Kurt certain personal property located in the home, but required Kurt to retrieve that property within 90 days or forfeit it.
- Kurt did not retrieve some property within the 90-day period; later he filed a motion asking the court to order Kimberly to return his property and to hold her in contempt; Kimberly counterclaimed for contempt over unpaid alimony.
- At an evidentiary hearing the district court found neither party willfully violated the decree, but found the parties had orally agreed (and acted) to extend the 90-day retrieval period several times.
- The district court ordered Kimberly to turn over Kurt’s personal property; Kimberly appealed, arguing the court impermissibly modified the settlement without a written agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had authority to modify the divorce settlement by enforcing a retrieval extension | Acton (Wife): The court improperly modified the settlement in violation of the agreement’s clause that modifications must be in writing | Acton (Husband): Parties orally agreed to extend the 90‑day period and acted consistently with that agreement; court merely enforced the parties’ modification | Court: No improper modification by judge; parties orally modified the agreement and acted on it, and the court approved that change |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Wolititch, 341 P.3d 421 (Wyo. 2015) (standard of review for bench findings and legal conclusions)
- Samiec v. Hopkins, 358 P.3d 506 (Wyo. 2015) (review of decree modification and court authority)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 868 P.2d 259 (Wyo. 1994) (parties may not unilaterally modify a decree without court involvement)
- McKenzie v. Shepard, 814 P.2d 701 (Wyo. 1991) (same principle regarding modification of divorce decrees)
- Big-D Signature Corp. v. Sterrett Props., LLC, 288 P.3d 72 (Wyo. 2012) (integrated contracts may be orally modified when parties both agree and act consistently)
- Meiners v. Meiners, 376 P.3d 493 (Wyo. 2016) (settlement agreements are presumed to merge into the divorce decree)